Theos-Talk Archives (March 1999 Message tt00104)

In a message dated 3/11/99 1:53:26 PM, Peter wrote:

<<Actually, I have mixed feelings [about scholarly research of Theosophy].
One part of me feels if academics can't be persuaded by the ideas and
substance of the doctrines then what difference will the 'officially correct'
spellings and

dictionary definitions make?  >>

If this were the sole point of research, I would agree with you Peter.

But scholars ignore Theosophy for more substantial reasons than spelling.
HPB's vocabulary is *so* "out there" that it isn't a matter of spelling.  They
actually think she MADE THESE TERMS UP.  Scholars believe Blavatsky's work has
nothing to do with the real world; these terms are from her imagination and
thus should justifiably be pushed aside for "real knowledge."

However, if we can show that HPB's spellings are merely phonetic, and if we
can spell them correctly and show that they appear in dictionaries and in
(hitherto secret) Buddhist texts etc. then it is made abundantly clear that
HPB was doing *exactly* what she said she was.

Scholars are well-known for being spiritually blind.  They also, however, tend
to be objective about the dead-letter.  Showing that HPB even measures up in a
dead-letter way will at least encourage scholars to look again at her.

Rich

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.